[130]. The position of the “district of Shetau or (Shetep)” is uncertain. The inscription merely says that the king went down stream, and that the journey took him a night to accomplish, but the name of the place from whence Amenhetep and his officers started is not recorded. Mr. Fraser (P.S.B.A., XXI, p. 157) suggests Memphis as the starting place, and the Wadŷ Tumilât as the scene of the hunt, and he further remarks that “except the Fayûm, there is no place that I can think of in Upper Egypt where one can imagine there were ever wild cattle.” I suspect, however, that it was from Thebes that the royal hunter set out, and that the district of Shetau (or Shetep) was one of those wadŷs near Keneh (just a night’s journey from Thebes down stream) which at certain times of the year contain low, but luxuriant vegetation. I have visited this district several times (in February 1896, again in December 1901, and for a third time in March 1904), and was much struck by the great quantity of vegetation which is to be seen in the desert to the east of Kuft and Keneh. There is one wadŷ in particular which extends for some miles in a northerly direction between Legêta and Keneh that literally abounds in low shrubs and other vegetation, far more than enough to support vast herds of wild cattle. It may here be pointed out that the ancient fauna of Egypt differed very greatly from its present fauna. Before the advent of the camel into Egypt, all the wadŷs of the Arabian chain of hills were plentifully stocked with game of all kinds. At Beni Hasan, El Bersheh, and many other places are represented scenes of hunting wild animals, including the lion, bubalis, etc.; and the wadŷs east of Keneh were celebrated as hunting grounds at the time of Thothmes III and Amenhetep II. In more than one private tomb at Thebes we have scenes of hunting which are expressly stated to have taken place “in the Ant,” i.e., the desert to the east of Kuft, and in the tomb of Men-kheper-ra-senb the superintendent of the hunting at Kuft is mentioned.
[131]. On this title, see my note in Garstang’s El Arabeh, p. 33.
[132]. Driving the animals into nets was a favourite method of hunting in ancient times (cf., among many other instances, my El Bersheh, I, pl. VII, and the Vaphio Vase at Athens). Nets are still used for this purpose in some parts of Africa (Baker’s Ismailia, pp. 435-438).
[133]. Dr. Budge has suggested to me that this dyke may have been a series of covered pits into which the animals would fall, thus enabling the huntsmen to capture them easily. He would also identify the semau of the Egyptians with the rimi of the Assyrian inscriptions, an animal hunted by Tiglath Pileser and other monarchs.
[134]. Since this was written, a study of the inscription on this scarab has been published by Steindorff, from my copy of the Alnwick specimen, in Ä.Z., XXXIX, 62.
[135]. The Vatican specimen gives kher hen ne Heru for the abbreviated kher Heru on the Alnwick example.
[136]. The Vatican scarab gives the determinative of land (the triangle) in the place of the t on the Alnwick specimen.
[137]. A mis-reading (Zaru) of this place-name has led to the identification of the city with Zaru or Zal (perhaps the modern Sele), the eastern frontier fort of Egypt. Prof. Breasted, Prof. Steindorff, and the writer, however, all came independently to the conclusion that Zarukha must be the name of the palace-town of Amenophis III and Thŷi, which is situated a little to the south of Medinet Habu; the lake mentioned on this scarab is therefore to be identified with the modern Birket Habu.
[138]. The numerals given on the Vatican scarab are blundered, and consequently difficult to read.
[139]. Read tahen, not neferu; this is clear on the Vatican specimen. An officer of this boat is mentioned on a stela in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre (C. 207).